Commissioner Quigley at April meeting of Edgewater-Rogers Park DFA

Written by: Melissa Lindberg on Apr 29, 2007 9:56 PM EDT

Linked to groups: Northside DFA

Cook County Commissioner Mike Quigley spoke at the Edgewater-Rogers Park DFA on Thursday, April 5th, at our regular monthly meeting.  Though Quigley’s main topic was TIFs – Tax Incremental Financing, he also spoke about his experiences as a reform legislator on the Cook County Board, and pushing County government to become more green – the newest county building has been built using green technology.

 

Quigley pointed out that at one time, our local taxes went to paying for services – like schools, hospitals, street repairs, garbage pickup.  Now, our taxes primarily go to fund the debt and pensions.  TIFs have become a way for local governments to increase revenues without increasing taxes visibly.  However, Quigley feels its really a back-door tax hike; he estimates that our taxes in Cook County are 10% higher because the taxes from TIFs go to the TIF districts, and not into the local budgets.  TIFs are supposed to be used to aid blighted areas, but they have been increasingly misused as local governments look for ways get around tax restrictions.  Tax revenues from TIFs are supposed to go back into the TIF District, but any difference between the estimated value of the TIF and actual revenues are often diverted into other projects after the fact.  However, when the tax revenues go to the TIF district, they are not going directly into other local governmental bodies: the City, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, the Forest District, the school districts, and the county government.  There has been a lack of accountability and transparency in the way TIF revenues have been spent.  The public rarely has input into how TIF revenues are spent; the TIF districts are in force for a 23-year lifetime, which depletes the revenues of taxing authorities other than municipalities over a long period of times.  The increased use of TIFs has led to some odd areas being designated “blighted.”  For instance, LaSalle Street was recently granted a TIF – and LaSalle Street is hardly blighted.  While TIFs can provide a handy slush fund for municipal governments, the overall effect is that taxes get raised in order to cover the loss of the revenues for other governmental bodies. 

 

Quigley stressed the need for more transparency in the use of TIF revenues, and in the way TIFs are approved.  Its important that taxing authorities that will be affected by the TIF be involved in the process, and also taxpayers in the area affected.  Implicit in this discussion of TIFs is the need to change the way we talk about taxes:  if municipalities cannot raise taxes to provide city services, they resort to back-door taxes in the form of TIFs.  In the end, taxpayers end up paying more.  If we want services, we need to figure out how to pay for them – and we need to make the whole process a lot more transparent.  Not that there would be ever any improper shenanigans in the way TIFs are approved and run, right?

Edgewater/Rogers Park DFA ByLaws

Written by: Melissa Lindberg on Oct 4, 2006 10:24 PM EDT

Linked to groups: Northside DFA

So, below is the current working draft of the bylaws for the Edgewater/Rogers Park DFA -- please feel free to comment on them below. It would be nice to have some of the discussion about various provisions of the bylaws before we meet to vote on them -- currently, we expect to discuss and vote at the December meeting (or, if there's time, November). These will also be distributed in hard copy at the meeting tomorrow (Thursday, October 5); however, we will not be discussing them at the October meeting (no time!).

Thanks,
Melissa

Edgewater/Rogers Park DFA
BYLAWS WORKING DRAFT

Edgewater/Rogers Park Democracy For America has a mission to elect socially progressive, fiscally responsible, and ethically committed Democrats to office at all levels of government. In order to effectively accomplish this, we have established the following bylaws to enable us to further our mission.

I. Leadership:
a. The leadership shall be comprised of one or two "Hosts/Co-Hosts" who are responsible for leading meetings, sending e-mails, and general organization of the group.
b. A steering committee comprised of no fewer than 5 and no more than 10 members, including the Host/Co-Host(s), will provide input to the Host/Co-Host(s). Decisions on meeting agendas will be made by the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee shall also be responsible for acting as liaison with other groups, and also for making interim decisions pertinent to the functioning of the group. All major decisions will be referred to the voting membership at a regularly scheduled meeting.
c. Included in the Steering Committee shall be three other officer positions: Secretary, Treasurer and Membership Chair. The secretary will be responsible making sure notes/minutes are taken for all minutes of the meetings (which includes designating a "note-taker-and-writer" for events the Secretary will be unable to attend), and for ensuring that minutes are posted on the group blog for all committee meetings. The Treasurer will be responsible for in-flow and out-flow of funds, should there be any. The Membership Chair will take attendance at meetings, keep a complete list of members, keep records of membership activities, and track voting members.
d. Steering Committee members should be aware that they are committing themselves to at least one Steering Committee meeting per month, as well as regular attendance at DFA meetings.
e. Terms of office for both the Host/Co-Host(s) and the Steering Committee shall be for two years.
f. Elections will be held every two years for both Hosts/Co-Hosts and Steering Committee. Elections shall be held in the fall of odd-numbered years.
i. No one may be either an Host/Co-Host or serve on the Steering Committee without being a voting member of the group.
ii. Nominations for the officers (Host/Co-Host, Secretary, Treasurer, and Membership Chair), and other Steering Committee members will be made at a regular DFA meeting. Volunteers are allowed to nominate themselves. No one who is not present may be nominated, unless he/she has previously indicated interest to one of the current Steering Committee members.
iii. If there is a contested slate of officers/Steering Committee members, candidates will be allowed to speak on their own behalf at the nomination meeting.
iv. Elections will be held at the regular monthly DFA meeting immediately following the nomination meeting, and will be held at the end of the meeting.
v. Members who wish to vote who are unable to attend the Election meeting may give a written "proxy" vote to any current Steering Committee member who is not running in the current election. In the event that the entire Steering Committee is slated in the election, a paper proxy may be given to another voting member.
vi. If the technology allows, voting may be held on line via the DFA Edgewater Rogers Park web page: the voting period shall be limited to the month between the nominating meeting and the election meeting, and only voting members shall be allowed to vote.
vii. The voting period will be limited to the month between the nomination meeting and the election. No votes cast after the election meeting will be counted. The winners as of the election meeting are considered final.
viii. Elections for officers and Steering Committee members will be done by ballot, rather than a show of hands. The ballot will be Instant Runoff Voting. Votes will be counted by the Steering Committee; any voting member may observe the vote count. Votes shall be tallied immediately following the meeting; results will be posted on the Blog. The elected Co-Hosts will be the top two vote getters; other offices/steering committee members will be declared winners by a plurality of the votes.
ix. Elections are effective immediately.
g. Should either an officer or other Steering Committee member be unable to fulfill their responsibilities, due consideration will be given to the circumstances, and other Steering Committee members will have discretion in the following actions:
i. Incapacitated member may be retained until such time as able to resume responsibilities, providing other members are will to take up the slack;
ii. Incapacitated member may be removed from office. In such an event, a "special election" may be held to replace incapacitated member, following rules stated above.
h. Should a Steering Committee member resign for any reason, the remaining Steering Committee members may decide to hold a "special election" to replace him/her. If an officer resigns, the Steering Committee may nominate someone from the Steering Committee, or they may hold open nominations from the group. The election of the replacement must form part of the agenda for the regular DFA meeting following the resignation.
II. Voting Members
a. DFA Edgewater Rogers Park meetings are open to all who agree with our basic mission, and to guests who may be curious.
b. Voting members shall be defined as those who:
i. Have attended at least three meetings in the previous year; and
ii. Have participated in at least three Edgewater/Rogers Park DFA-organized campaign-related events in the last calendar year outside of the regular meetings.
c. These activities will be verified by both:
i. Sign-up on DFA Link
ii. Verification by Steering Committee member (or designee) present at event.
d. Members who are unreasonably disruptive or consistently negative may be disqualified from voting, and may be removed from the mailing list. Disqualification should be determined by a consensus of the Steering Committee. Such member will be informed of the decision by a Steering Committee member, and may appeal the decision to the Steering Committee. Such matters may not be discussed at the regular meeting of the larger group without consent from the Steering Committee.
III. Voting
a. For a vote to be valid, 50% of voting members must have voted either by proxy, online, or be present at the meeting when the vote is held.
b. To adopt or change the By-Laws, two-thirds of those voting must agree to the adoption/change.
c. Voting members shall vote on the following matters:
i. By-Laws adoption and modification
ii. Steering Committee membership and Officers
iii. Adoption/Endorsement of Candidates
iv. Relevant referenda endorsement (see definition of "relevant" below)
IV. Adoption and Endorsement of Campaigns
a. Definitions:
i. Adoption - Group agrees that we should devote a certain amount of resources (such as petition gathering, canvassing, GOTV efforts, donations, etc.) to the candidate. A liaison from Edgewater/Rogers Park DFA will be appointed to each adopted campaign, who will be responsible for the flow of information between Edgewater/Rogers Park DFA and the campaign, and for organizing participation in appropriate events. Members are expected to participate in some aspect of the campaign, whether it is in the form of canvassing, fundraisers, donating money, or other tasks as needed.
ii. Endorsement - Candidate can say that our DFA group endorses them. No guarantee that our group will devote any resources to the campaign, though we may include candidate on a pre-election day endorsement e-mail or flyer and may appoint a liaison to the campaign.
b. Candidate Eligibility:
i. In order to be eligible for adoption by the group, a candidate must:
1. Be nominated by any 1 voting member of the group
2. Either personally, or have a campaign representative, attend and speak at one of the group's meetings by invitation of the Steering Committee
3. Out-of-State and/or presidential candidates or their representatives will not be required to speak at a meeting in order to be adopted.
ii. In order to be eligible for endorsement by the group, a candidate must be nominated by any voting member of the group.
iii. Candidates will not be required to meet any litmus test regarding their views on particular issues in order to be eligible for adoption or endorsement.
c. Voting on candidate adoptions/endorsements:
i. Candidates being considered for adoption or endorsement will be asked to leave the room during the discussion and voting.
ii. An eligible candidate must receive 100% of the votes cast by voting members in order to be adopted.
iii. An eligible candidate must receive 75% of the votes cast by voting members in order to be endorsed.
iv. A voting member who chooses to abstain from voting will not be considered to have cast a vote regarding the adoption or endorsement of a candidate, but will be considered part of the 50% quorum.
v. Voting will occur at the regular DFA meeting following the meeting at which the candidate spoke. Online or proxy voting must be completed before the meeting at which the vote is held.
vi. The group may vote to postpone the endorsement/adoption vote of a candidate so that additional information can be gathered on that candidate and the race in which he or she is involved. In such case, a committee will be appointed to gather such information and share it with the group members.
d. Number of Candidates:
i. Only 4 candidates may be adopted by the group during an election cycle.
ii. There is no limit on the number of candidates the group may endorse in an election cycle.
e. Revocation of Support: Adoption or endorsement of a candidate will be revoked following a 100% vote by a quorum of voting members.
V. Referenda and other Issues
a. Edgewater/Rogers Park DFA will confine its activity on behalf of referenda and other issues to those that are election-related only.
b. A ballot initiative designed to get out the vote, or suppress the vote, may be included in the definition of "election-related."
VI. Money
a. All funds will be under the control of the Treasurer.
b. Funds may be used to support the activities of Edgewater/Rogers Park DFA.
c. Edgewater/Rogers Park DFA is not defined as a PAC, and does not give money to candidates or other worthy causes, though it may encourage individual members to do so.
VII. Meeting notes shall be posted on the group blog. Notes should be posted for the following groups:
a. The monthly meeting of Edgewater/Rogers Park DFA
b. All committee meetings, except for the Steering Committee
c. Steering Committee meetings are exempt from this, as the main order of business is to set the agenda of the next meeting, which is distributed at the meeting.
VIII. Changes in By-Laws:
a. For major modifications proposed to the By-Laws, a committee shall be established to consider and write the changes.
b. Proposed modifications will be posted to the web site in advance of the meeting where they will be discussed.
c. For minor modifications, discussion and voting may be held at the monthly meeting.
d. To adopt or change the By-Laws, two-thirds of those voting must agree to the adoption/change, either at the meeting, by proxy, or online.
e. The secretary must post the modified By-Laws on the web site.

Pavich Diary up on MyDD & Daily Kos

Written by: Melissa Lindberg on Jul 13, 2006 1:51 PM EDT

Linked to groups: Northside DFA

Since John Pavich is now one of our adopted candidates -- here is something we can do that does not require traveling to the district: recommend his diaries on MyDD and Daily Kos. The MyDD Diary is at:

www.mydd.com/story/2006/7/13/121516/609

Thanks for helping with visibility for John Pavich!

Thanks,
Melissa Lindberg
Edgewater-Rogers Park DFA

Polling Numbers Show Weller Extremely Vulnerable to Pavich Campaign Add to Hotlist

by John Pavich, Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 12:15:16 PM EST

Hey Folks. There's a great chance to pick up a seat in Illinois-11. A commended CIA Counter-Terrorism officer, John Pavich, is running against a weak incumbent in Jerry Weller.

Last month, the Pavich Campaign commissioned a poll of the district to survey voters of the 11th about the race. The numbers are in--and they spell trouble for Jerry Weller. These numbers confirm what John has been hearing around the district: Voters in the 11th are ready for change, and John is the right man to lead them in a new direction.

The poll of likely voters in Illinois-11 shows the following:

-In a head to head match up that provides positive descriptions of both candidates, as they would describe themselves, John takes a commanding 15-point lead over Weller, 51% to 36%.

-The critical number for incumbents is a re-elect number over 55%. Weller fails to meet this mark, securing only 46% of the district's initial approval.

-When likely voters hear about John, his background, accomplishments, and plan to change the direction of our country, they choose John over Weller 55% to 27%.

As more Democrats move into the 11th, this poll confirms what we know to be true--Illinois-11 will be in-play and very winnable in November. John has done better than any candidate before him in winning over voters and the press. His strong fundraising against a 12-year incumbent shows what people around the district think of their current representation. With enough support, we can change this part of Illinois from red to blue, and help change the direction of our country.

And, in case you don't know much about the race, John, or Jerry Weller, please check out this post:

John's Race

-The Pavich Campaign Team

Cross-Posted at Daily Kos
Check out John's website at www.pavichforcongress.com....

***The poll of 500 likely voters in Illinois' 11th Congressional district was conducted by Anzalone Listz Research and has a margin of error of 4.3%.

Rules Committee meeting

Written by: Melissa Lindberg on May 19, 2006 3:16 PM EDT

Linked to groups: Northside DFA

So, we had a Rules Committee meeting last night -- the charge of this group is to figure out rules for governing our group. I was annointed the "leader" ("conveener"? "scribe"? "organizer"? "Grand Pooh-bah"? we do not have a rule about what titles go with what jobs) of the group, so I get to make postings about the meetings, try to gather the group for meetings, and take the flak for what we come up with . . . thanks.

What we accomplished last night was to make a list of the issues that we feel need to be addressed by "Rules." We did not find solutions last night: we just listed issues. Feel free to add to or comment on the issues that we thought about:

1) Terms of Leaders (Organizers, Steering Committee)
2) Election of Leaders
3) Replacing mid-term loss of leadership
4) Rules for voting members
5) Percentage of votes needed to pass non-endorsement issues (including rules . . . )
6) Revisit candidate endorsement - adoption limits
7) Rules for different types of elections: should the rules differ between primary, general, non-partisan election cycles?
8) Thoughts about money and how the group should manage it (or not)
9) Liaisons for campaigns and events
10) Committees should post meeting notes on the blog

The last is a strong suggestion from the Rules Committee that could be implemented now, even without any votes :) Live by sunshine rules . . . . open democracy . . . anyway, you get my drift.

So those are our notes from our meeting last night. Feel free to comment, suggest, critique (but kindly), etc . . .

Health Care in Illinois: from the Times-Argus in VT

Written by: Melissa Lindberg on Mar 6, 2006 2:58 PM EST

Linked to groups: Northside DFA

Here's a very interesting article that appeared in the Times-Argues -- Montpelier, VT, apparently via the Tribune:


Health coverage for all has a chance in Illinois

Times Argus March 6, 2006

By Judith Graham Chicago Tribune

CHICAGO -- With millions of Americans losing health insurance and crying for relief from soaring medical costs, Illinois is considering a bold and once-unthinkable proposal -- extending medical coverage to all state residents.

It's a daunting, politically controversial and potentially expensive prospect, with 1.8 million uninsured people in the state. But experts say health reform may stand a better chance of passing in Illinois than almost anywhere in the nation.

"The odds are long, but they're much better in Illinois than most other states," said Alan Weil, executive director of the National Academy for State Health Policy.

An unprecedented public debate is under way, with public hearings on health-care issues being held in each Illinois legislative district. Meanwhile, a new 29-member task force has been meeting regularly and plans to deliver a report on various reform proposals to the Legislature as early as August.

A wide range of options is likely to be considered, including expanding Medicaid to cover more low-income adults, providing health insurance subsidies or tax incentives to small businesses, and letting the uninsured buy coverage through new insurance pools, several task force members said.

"The process in Illinois is unique, and we're all closely following what is happening there," said Mark Blum, executive director of America's Agenda, a coalition of 20 national and international labor unions.

Illinois last year became the first state to promise medical coverage to all children. But some experts suggest the time is ripe for even more aggressive action.

"Medical providers are taking it on the chin. Consumers are taking it on the chin. Employers are taking it on the chin. And there's a real feeling out there that this could be the last great chance we have to do something," said Howard Lerner, who heads the new health-care task force and is president of the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago.

"The sense of physicians at this point is if we don't find a solution for these problems, a solution will be imposed on us," echoed Dr. Craig Backs, another task force member and president of the Illinois State Medical Society. "That's not something we want to see happen."

Illinois' political climate is especially favorable for health reform, with a governor who has made health care a signature issue and a Legislature controlled by Democrats, who tend to make medical issues a priority. Still, here as across the country, there are deep ideological and partisan divides over how to fix a dysfunctional medical system and enormous concerns about potential costs.

"I think the business community would very much like to see government undertake initiatives to help the market work better. But unfortunately when something happens in this state, it almost always is an expansion of government-provided health care and we have great difficulty supporting that," said Todd Maisch, a vice president at the Illinois Chamber of Commerce.

The current debate was jump-started by the Health Care Justice Act, a little-known piece of legislation passed in 2004. For the first time, the act affirmed that "it is a policy goal of the state of Illinois to insure that all residents have access to quality health care at costs that are affordable."

The act went further by setting up a process for debating health reform throughout Illinois and a timetable for coming up with a "health-care access plan" for the state Legislature to consider.

The key dates are approaching. More than half the legislative districts in the state have already held public hearings. The task force was due to present a report on reform proposals to the Legislature this month, but that deadline has been pushed back to the end of summer because of funding delays. Meanwhile, the act strongly encourages lawmakers to vote on a proposed plan by the end of this year and start implementing reforms by July 2007.

"This is a process we have never formally engaged in before in Illinois, and a groundbreaking opportunity," said Dr. Lawrence Haspel, senior vice president of the Metropolitan Chicago Healthcare Council.

What's really new is the fact that consumer and business organizations, medical providers, health insurers, lawmakers and others are working together for the first time to consider reform options. In the past, the groups have held widely divergent views and made little effort to collaborate.

Consensus is by no means guaranteed. Virtually every other state that has attempted significant health reform has seen its efforts founder under the weight of competing special interests. And though some experts argue health care is a local concern that needs local solutions, others maintain problems are national in scope and beyond any individual state's ability to manage.

"Can you imagine every state having its own unique health-care system? That would be a disaster," said Kim Maisch, Illinois state director for the National Federation of Independent Business.

Also, public officials keenly remember the fallout from President Bill Clinton's attempt to reform health care a dozen years ago -- leaving a sense that the issue is so divisive that any attempt to address it is bound to end disastrously. The question now is, are enough people upset enough over soaring medical costs and eroding insurance coverage to make it worthwhile, politically, to take on these issues?

Kenneth Robbins, a task force member and head of the Illinois Hospital Association, thinks the answer is maybe. "For a dozen years, health reform has been one of the third rails of American politics," he said. "Now, the issue is regaining respectability and people are willing to come up to the rail. Whether they're willing to touch it yet, I just don't know."

In any case, no one expects a one-size-fits-all answer to emerge in Illinois, including advocacy groups that in the past devoted their efforts to pushing a Canadian-style, government-run health-care system.

"That just doesn't have enough appeal here," said Jim Duffett, executive director of the Campaign for Better Health Care. Instead, he predicts, a "hodgepodge of public and private solutions" will be put forward, and "controlling costs" will be part of any discussion to expand access.

Republican state Rep. Elizabeth Coulson, who supported the passage of the Health Care Justice Act, said Illinois has already done "pretty much the obvious things" in expanding coverage to low-income children and their families through KidCare, FamilyCare and now Gov. Rod Blagojevich's new plan, All Kids. That program will extend medical coverage to about 250,000 uninsured children, beginning July 1.

Going forward, Coulson envisions a series of incremental reforms targeting specific populations, such as poor, single adults without children (who currently don't qualify for Medicaid) and young adults (who often lose their medical coverage when they leave college and start working in entry-level jobs). Another target group might be people ages 55 to 64 who can't get insurance because of a pre-existing medical condition and are too young to qualify for Medicare.

"I think there's actually a will to expand coverage in Illinois, but it won't be one solution and it won't happen next year," Coulson said.

"Everybody is going to have to get something and everybody is going to have to give something for this to work," said Lerner, the chair of the state's health-care task force. Any expansion of coverage must be paired with measures to make health insurance more affordable and to encourage more preventive services that help keep people well, he said.

So far, public comments have overwhelmingly endorsed the need for the state to take aggressive action. At a recent hearing in Skokie, Beryl Clemens, 74, described what it was like to live without medical insurance for seven years after her husband died and before becoming eligible for Medicare.

Fearful of an accident, Clemens stopped driving and became isolated. Unable to afford care, she stopped seeing the doctor and filling prescriptions.

"I was unhappy, I was scared," she said, telling the task force: "I would be very pleased if you passed a comprehensive health-care bill in Illinois so no one else has to go through what I went through. ... It was a living nightmare."

Steve Heller & Diebold: as mentioned at tonight's mtg

Written by: Melissa Lindberg on Mar 3, 2006 12:45 AM EST

Linked to groups: Northside DFA

Here is one story from The Huffington Post on our friend Steve Heller, whom I mentioned tonight at the meeting:

http://www.huffingtonpos...

Peter Soby, Jr. Peter Soby, Jr.
Bio
Blog Index RSS
02.27.2006
Whistleblower Charged With Three Felonies for Exposing Diebold's Crimes (57 comments )
READ MORE: New York Times, George W. Bush

A whistleblower in Los Angeles is in legal trouble and needs our help. Stephen Heller is alleged to have exposed documents in Jan. & Feb. 2004 which provided smoking gun evidence that Diebold was using illegal, uncertified software in California voting machines. The docs also showed that Diebold's California attorneys (the powerful international law firm Jones Day) had told them they were in breach of the law for using uncertified software, but Diebold continued to use the uncertified software anyway.
Heller is alleged to have come across these docs while temping as a word processor at Jones Day, and he is further alleged to have taken the docs and exposed them to the bright light of day. Now, after sitting on this for 2 years, the Los Angeles District Attorney, under pressure from Jones Day, is going after this whistleblower with 3 felony charges, each of which carries the potential of time in state prison. Here is a story in the LA Times. Heller's lawyer believes the 2 year wait to file charges was due to the then-impending 2004 election, and that Diebold and their attorneys didn't want the information to be made public in the lead up to the election.

The documents also look bad for Diebold's California lawyers, Jones Day. According to Bev Harris, author of the book Black Box Voting, the docs "provided evidence that the Jones Day law firm was helping Diebold to cover up the fact that they were installing uncertified software which, as it turns out, caused thousands of voters to be unable to vote just weeks later."

Bev Harris continues, "Jim March, another investigator for Black Box Voting, and I immediately took the documents to both the California Attorney General's office and to Kevin Shelley, who was then the California Secretary of State. Just days later, the secretary of state decertified Diebold." At the time, Shelley called the company's conduct "reprehensible" and said "their performance, their behavior, is despicable," and that "if that's the kind of deceitful behavior they're going to engage in, they can't do business in California." In an interview, Shelly said "We will not tolerate the deceitful conduct of Diebold, and we must send a clear message to the rest of the industry: Don't try to pull a fast one on the voters of California." Shelley then requested Cal. Attorney General Bill Lockyer to investigate taking criminal and civil actions against the company based on what he called "fraudulent actions by Diebold." Lockyer eventually dropped the criminal probe of Diebold but he sued the company on behalf of California, and Diebold settled out of court for $2.6 million.

Let's make this clear, folks. The docs Heller is accused of exposing were important evidence. First, they show that Diebold and their attorneys, Jones Day, conspired to mislead the California secretary of state, and that the lie they told was material, and resulted directly in the disenfranchisement of voters. Second, another document demonstrates that Diebold lied to the secretary of state when it represented that certain problems with its software were "fixed." This document, the release notes for the new software, showed that the problems were not fixed. Third, the documents showed that Diebold had been advised by Jones Day that what it had been doing with its uncertified software was illegal. Fourth, the documents show that Jones Day advised Diebold that it was subject to criminal prosecution. So in a nutshell, Diebold was defrauding the state government and taxpayers of California, and disenfranchising the voters of California. And the documents PROVE it.

And for allegedly exposing Diebold's felonious behavior (which led directly to Diebold being de-certified in California), for allegedly helping protect the taxpayers and voters of California, for allegedly helping to keep elections clean and fair, what happens? Diebold, the true criminal in this case, and their powerful international law firm Jones Day, press the L.A. District Attorney's office to hammer Heller, a whistleblower. Three felonies! Diebold was (and probably still is) screwing California voters, Heller is alleged to have seen the smoking gun evidence of Diebold's crimes, and, like a true patriot and whistleblower, allegedly exposed that smoking gun evidence, and now HE'S the one facing jail time. Only in Bush's America!

And the irony is, if Heller is convicted of a felony for exposing Diebold's crimes against the California voters, he'll lose his right to vote. Diebold will win. We can't let that happen!

But we can help. Let's flood the Los Angeles DA's office with phone calls, letters and emails asking them not to crucify this whistleblower.

Now of course, BE POLITE. Remember you are writing, calling and emailing the office of the Los Angeles District Attorney, which is a branch of law enforcement. Being harassing, rude, or threatening will only get you in legal trouble of your own, and it won't help Steve Heller, the whistleblower.

Talking points:

Don't prosecute Stephen Heller. He's a whistleblower, not a criminal, and he should not be prosecuted.

Diebold is the criminal here. Stephen Heller is alleged to have exposed Diebold's criminal activity, and that makes him a whistleblower. He should not be prosecuted.

Diebold's election malfeasance strikes at the very heart of our democratic republic. Without clean elections, we don't have democracy anymore. Those who expose such crimes are whistleblowers and should not be prosecuted.

America has a long history of whistleblowers exposing criminal activity, and prosecuting them is wrong; it puts a chilling effect on others who might see criminal activity and want to expose it.

Heller is getting pounded. He's the victim of bullies; a huge, powerful, wealthy, politically connected corporation and their equally huge and powerful international law firm are slamming him, grinding him up in legal machinery for allegedly lifting up the pretty skirt Diebold shows to the world, exposing the dirty, stinking criminal secrets that lie beneath. For what he's alleged to have done, there was nothing in it for him. No financial gain (in fact a serious financial loss, because he got fired from his job, and he's had to pay 10s of thousands of dollars to his lawyers, and owes them 10s of thousands more). And he's now at risk of over 3 years in state prison. It's insane. His cause is a worthy one, and he needs our help. Please call, write and email today.

Email the Los Angeles District Attorney's office at lada@co.la.ca.us.

A good old fashioned snail mail letter is very powerful tool:

District Attorney's Office
County of Los Angeles
210 West Temple Street, Suite 18000
Los Angeles, CA 90012-3210

And of course, phone calls:

Telephone (213) 974-3512
Fax (213) 974-1484
TTY (800) 457-7778 (8:30am - 5:00pm M-F)

Let's help defend a whistleblower from Diebold and their attorneys!

and a second post can be found here:

http://www.huffingtonpos...